bob_lazzarini Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Posted this message in the B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum<br>Perhaps a number of you who use the film might contribute an answer.<p><ahref=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Ie5>thelink</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 One thing I've been meaning to ask on the film forum: I can't quite figure out why my newest batches of Tri-X (import) from B&H curl so much (a somewhat annoying situation). I'm not doing anything different in processing, so I wonder if something has changed for the worse in the manufacturng of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabriel_roca Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Huh! I thought I was alone in experiencing the "film-curl" problem with this new form of Tri-X. It makes it rather difficult to insert film into sleeves without getting your prints all over them. Thanks for bringing up that problem, Ray. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I've found putting a little weight on the negatives (like a medium sized book) while in the sleeves for a day or so generally works. You can always resort to white gloves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 120 Tri-X in the UK has always been rather prone to curling. Perhaps they're using the same base for 35mm now?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Well here's what I was told by a Kodak rep at Pro Photo one day. I was asking her why the developement times changed for TriX and she said that Kodak built a whole new manufactoring site just for producing it, partially because the old facility made them take more steps to protect the film from contaminants, I guess dust and the like and thus they had to use a thicker backing on the film to protect it at a certain point in its production. Since the new facilty is state-o-the-art, they are able to use a thinner backing on the film, thus cutting their cost and reducing developement time due to thinner backing. She said the emulsion is actually the same, only should be more consistant. I imagine the reduced backing might explain the tendency to curl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Sorry, by film backing, I think I'm actually meaning the film base. Its thicker in the old Tri-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_g Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 How can i know the difference of the old an new Tri-X? I have some rolls in my freezer that aren´t markt with anything eccept Tri-X and dev before 05-2006. (They are bougth from a firm that sells "pro-packs" in anonymous cartriges.) (i hope that they really are Tri-X, but it seems so.) Ivan G (of Sweden) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The package is different colors (green writing)and I think, though I don't have one in front of me that it says professional? I suppose I should look before typing. But the package has a whole different look than the "old" tri-x, at least out here in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_schmid Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The old packing says TX 400 and the new packing says 400 TX. For me the quality seems to be identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Roland---are the developing times different? I know they're listed as different-- -I'm wondering whether you changed the times? Or it matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I dunno about the new Tri-X, but the new formulation of TMZ is inferior to the old stuff -- grainier in the two developers I've tried thus far, less sharp, and muckier tonality. After about eight years and maybe 400 rolls of the stuff, I'm now trying Delta 3200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The developement times for new Tri-X are differnt, at least with xtol and hc-110, it takes less time for the developers I've used. The developement times are on the Kodak website, I recommend you check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_schmid Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Hy John, I usually develop Tri-X (old and new) in D-76, 1:1, 11 minutes. I don't see any necessary to change the time, the results look identical. On the other hand I don't have comparable experiences with other developers yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips1 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Yeah, my new Tri-X curls as well. Going to print some tomorrow, so I've had the negs under weights (in sleeves) for a few days. I hope that flattens them out. As for Processing times I use D-76 or ID-11 1:1 for their stated times and found that the negs. are either fine...or perhaps bit heavy. I think the last batch in ID-11, I cut down on time for 60 or 90 sec. and I liked the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now